JP Cusick and Child Support

[jimnyc]

I am DYING to hear our new members take on child support and why he thinks it's the worst thing in the world. This is a man running for "actual office", and apparently doesn't believe parents should be financially responsible for their kids. My ONLY issue, ever, is WAY off topic - and that it irritates me that a man MUST pay CS even if he didn't want a kid.... You know, the whole abortion / have child and man having little input. But anyway, what is done is done and at that point BOTH parents need to take responsibility.

JP - as a man running for office, which would include all financials being disclosed... I'd be very curious to hear if you currently pay CS or ever did. Additionally, were you EVER behind on said payments?

Then explain to us what the horror is in CS...

[JP Cusick]

I am DYING to hear our new members take on child support and why he thinks it's the worst thing in the world. This is a man running for "actual office", and apparently doesn't believe parents should be financially responsible for their kids.

I am not really saying that I do not like it when both the biological parents raise their own children, as I am only against the evil Child Support and Custody laws which interfere with the parents doing their own parenting.

It is the laws which are wrong, and the laws make the 2 parents wrong.

My ONLY issue, ever, is WAY off topic - and that it irritates me that a man MUST pay CS even if he didn't want a kid.... You know, the whole abortion / have child and man having little input. But anyway, what is done is done and at that point BOTH parents need to take responsibility.

I very much disagree with that horrible stance that the father might want an abortion so then the mother has no claim on the father who did not want the baby.

That argument is sound and sensible except at the same time it is a cruel and inhuman stance too.

I find that many abortions really are done based on the 2 parents being worried about the Child Support and Custody laws which the 2 parents know that those laws will attack them as parents so they chose an abortion instead, which is another example of those laws being evil.

JP - as a man running for office, which would include all financials being disclosed... I'd be very curious to hear if you currently pay CS or ever did. Additionally, were you EVER behind on said payments?

I give all that info on my website of my finances and my own Child Support history, and I am told that some time after 5 posting then I can start putting links onto this forum.

To copy paste it onto here would not be cool, and to summarize the info is done on the website.

Then explain to us what the horror is in CS...

The Child Support and Custody laws have turned parenting into a crime, and has turned millions of parents into criminals and the laws alienate the children from their parents, and creates an unnatural barrier between the two parents.

So that makes the Child Support and Custody laws as evil.

[avatar4321]

And what crime has it turned parenting into?

[JP Cusick]

And what crime has it turned parenting into?

I see that as a sensible question because there is no real crime at all.

The parents are persecuted and insulted, degraded, incarcerated, and more when their only crime is being a parent.

Of course the parents are put into jails for being too poor to pay the thieving Child Support, but being poor (or a parents being poor) is not a real crime either.

The answer to the question is that there is no crime at all by the parents involved.

There is the State crimes against its citizens as in persecuting the parents under the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

[fj1200]

... thieving Child Support...

So the child who didn't ask to be born is stealing from his/her parents?

[avatar4321]

I don't see how being expected to support your children is thievery.

Taking from one person to give to another who has no right to it is robbery.

Taking from a person in order to pay a debt they are failing to pay to another is not.

[darin]

If the support-receiving parent had to show the money was ACTUALLY going to 'support the child', I'd be thrilled. Child-support is generally 'male-thievery'; that is to say, women often get thousands of dollars per year to 'support a kid' bills that are only perhaps half that.

Child support should be this, for one child, for a 100% custodial parent:

Add HALF the amount of the difference between a 1 bedroom place and a 2.

Every other dollar spent should be annotated, with half the total awarded to the custodial parent.

Here's what happens: Woman gets custody, and gets awarded 'child support' to the point the father lives in poverty, while she blows money on nails and hair. (shrug).

Child support audits and record keeping.

I'd also love if a politician had enough guts to throw out 'pay or go to jail' laws.

...but don't get me started....



To quote the poet, Kanye..

18 years, 18 years
She got one of yo' kids, got you for 18 years
I know somebody payin' child support for one of his kids
His baby momma's car crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV, any given Sunday
Win the Superbowl and drive off in a Hyundai

[fj1200]

^That was better said than from an actual "politician."

[ConHog]

I am DYING to hear our new members take on child support and why he thinks it's the worst thing in the world. This is a man running for "actual office", and apparently doesn't believe parents should be financially responsible for their kids. My ONLY issue, ever, is WAY off topic - and that it irritates me that a man MUST pay CS even if he didn't want a kid.... You know, the whole abortion / have child and man having little input. But anyway, what is done is done and at that point BOTH parents need to take responsibility.

JP - as a man running for office, which would include all financials being disclosed... I'd be very curious to hear if you currently pay CS or ever did. Additionally, were you EVER behind on said payments?

Then explain to us what the horror is in CS...

I am with you 100% on the forcing a man to pay child support if the woman decides to have the child , but not giving him ANY say so when it comes to deciding on abortion or not.

Full disclosure, my ex wife is over $50K behind in child support and will in all likelihood NEVER be required to pay any of it since my son is now over 18 years gold. Yes it's on the books, but not likely to be collected.

[ConHog]

I see that as a sensible question because there is no real crime at all.

The parents are persecuted and insulted, degraded, incarcerated, and more when their only crime is being a parent.

Of course the parents are put into jails for being too poor to pay the thieving Child Support, but being poor (or a parents being poor) is not a real crime either.

The answer to the question is that there is no crime at all by the parents involved.

There is the State crimes against its citizens as in persecuting the parents under the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

Among the MANY things you have wrong here. If you don't support your offspring, financially or otherwise, you are not a parent, you are a DNA donor and nothing more.

[JP Cusick]

So the child who didn't ask to be born is stealing from his/her parents?

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.

[ConHog]

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.

Am I too understand that you are actually running for an elected office?

You're beyond ridiculous, the above post by you makes no sense whatsoever.

[darin]

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.

I agree with that.

[fj1200]

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

It's not my projection, it's your inability to explain in words WTF you're talking about.

[Little-Acorn]

When parents have kids, the parents owe those kids a decent upbringing, to the extent those parents can provide. (and when the kids grow up and have their own kids, they will owe THEIR kids the same, etc. etc.).

When parents with kids divorce, they are renegging on the debt they owe their kids. Even if the divorce was justified, even inevitable, they still owe that debt to their kids... and the divorce interferes in major ways with its settlement, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce.

How SHOULD the parents fulfill the debt they owe to their kids, after they divorce? Child support payments are part of the way. Visitation is another, etc. What exactly SHOULD the judge decide?

In California (divorce rulings vary by state), the judge will set support payments based on what each parent earns, and on what each parent needs to support himself. If later one of them loses a job, or has unexpected large expenses (car wreck, illness etc.), the judge will adjust payments accordingly. His goal is to achieve what is best for the child, and "not impossible" for the parents. He will not leave a payment schedule that totally strips one parent beyond his means.

I don't know how it goes in other states. That's how it is in California.

Is someone here, saying this is "wrong", and that it should be done some other way instead?